Volkswagen Polo 1997 vs Citroen Xsara 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 60 HP | 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 116 NM | 147 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 16 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
Citroen Xsara is a more dynamic driving. Volkswagen Polo engine produces 50 HP less power than Citroen Xsara, whereas torque is 31 NM less than Citroen Xsara. Due to the lower power, Volkswagen Polo reaches 100 km/h speed 6.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.8 | 6.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.8 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volkswagen Polo consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Citroen Xsara, which means that by driving the Volkswagen Polo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volkswagen Polo consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Citroen Xsara. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 45 litres | 54 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 660 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 810 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 660 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
| Citroen Xsara gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Volkswagen Vento | Installed on at least 10 other car models, including Peugeot 307, Citroen C3, Peugeot 206, Peugeot 207 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Citroen Xsara might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Citroen Xsara 2000 1.6 engine: Relatively reliable engine, the main problems tend to be with the engine control electronics. The engine is demanding on fuel quality and fuel consumption is relatively high. It is highly recommended to ... More about Citroen Xsara 2000 1.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.14 m | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.64 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.42 m | |
|
Volkswagen Polo is smaller, but slightly higher. Volkswagen Polo is 23 cm shorter than the Citroen Xsara, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Volkswagen Polo is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 390 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1250 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | 10.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volkswagen Polo is 0.2 metres more than that of the Citroen Xsara. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`490 kg | 1`100 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | above average | below average | |
| Volkswagen Polo has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Citroen Xsara has serious deffects in 35 percent more cases than Volkswagen Polo, so Volkswagen Polo quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 1000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.0/10 | 8.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volkswagen Polo has
|
Citroen Xsara has
| |